Feynman, Carl

Here's a letter I sent to the editors of Scientific American a
couple of weeks ago regarding the article on nanotechnology.
We'll see if they print it.

----Begin quoted material----

The Editors
Scientific American
415 Madison Ave.
New York
NY 10017-1111

Dear Editors:

I was dismayed to read in your April 1996 issue
("Waiting for Breakthroughs") an extended
quotation from Richard Feynman's essay "Cargo Cult
Science" used as a critique of nanotechnology. I am
sure he would have found such misuse of his idea quite
unreasonable. I should know, because I talked with him at
length about the prospects of nanotechnology.

As the article itself points out, Richard Feynman saw no
basis in physical laws that would preclude realization of
the concepts of nanotechnology. To claim that
nanotechnology is cargo cult science because its
proponents analyze the capabilites of devices not yet
constructed is as absurd as to say that astronautics was
cargo cult science before Sputnik.

Richard Feynman did not regard setting
"stretch" technological goals as cargo cult
science. Quite the opposite. In the course of his 1958
talk in which he proposed manipulating atoms, he offered
cash prizes from his own financial resources for
breakthrough achievements in working at a very small
scale. If he were still alive, I think that he would be
pleased to have his name associated with a large cash
prize that seeks to accelerate the realization of one of
his most exciting ideas. That is why I have participated
in defining the conditions for winning the Feynman Grand Prize, and
have agreed to naming the prize in his memory.

Sincerely,
Carl Feynman
Method Software Inc.
Acton, MA

(The writer is a computer scientist and the son of
physicist Richard Feynman.)

I recently read an article in the April 1996 Scientific
American called "Trends in Nanotechnology: Waiting
for Breakthroughs" by Scientific American staff
writer Gary Stix. In general, I was extremely
disappointed with the article's lack of technical
substance.

Perhaps, I'm reading too much into the article, but it
seemed to me that the writer was attempting to make fun
of nanotechnology and the researchers in the field. At
various points in the article, Mr. Stix compares
attendees at a Foresight Conference to acolytes, compares
Dr. Drexler to the cartoon character Mr. Peabody, and
concludes by comparing nanotechnology to Cargo Cult
science. Is this a technical article or a personal
attack? I expect more science from articles in Scientific
American.

To be more specific, it seems strange that the same
article which mentions Nobelist Richard P. Feynman's 1959
speech "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom",
would then turn around and use Feynman's words about
Cargo Cult science to denigrate an idea that Feynman
himself points to in his 1959 speech. As Feynman says in
his 1959 speech:

"I would like to describe a field, in which little
has been done, but in which an enormous amount can be
done in principle"

A Proposal

I understand that in order to further the cause of
"good science", one can debunk "bad
science", and perhaps that was the purpose of this
article. However, wouldn't a thoughtful article, with
input from proponents and critics of a field (but which
avoids sensationalism), be more useful than the kind of
article that Mr. Stix has written?

Can Scientific American provide space for an article
discussing the fundamental issues for nanotechnology?

-- Is it worthwhile to pursue the kind of theoretical
applied science that Drexler proposes?

Perhaps in addition to one or more followup articles,
Scientific American could sponsor a series of "fact
forums" or a series of debates about nanotechnology
and related areas, with researchers chosen from related
fields, so that an unbiased opinion could be formed about
the field.

This topic should be carefully considered by a periodical
of the caliber of Scientific American, so that the
readership of your magazine can form an opinion about the
feasibility or infeasibility of nanotechnology based upon
the scientific issues. I believe that since the possible
implications of nanotechnology are far-reaching, the
topic deserves a more studied analysis.

Sincerely yours,
Kyle Cochran

Opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect my
employer's views

In your recent story on "Trends in
Nanotechnology" you spent so much effort worrying
about the personalities of the researchers that you
missed the key distinction between molecular
nanotechnology and the other
"nanotechnologies." In increasing order of
control over atomic and molecular trajectories we have:

Only the last is not physically realized at this time. As
computational results showed in the conference your
writer attended, key concepts in molecular nanotechnology
such as the stability of nanomechanical gears and the
abstraction of single atoms from a surface were
validated. There is little doubt that more than a decade
of work is needed to create complex assembler systems,
but that is separate from the issues of whether those
systems are possible or desirable.

Next time, please stick to the technical and policy
issues and get them right.

As a principal sponsor of the $250,000 Feynman Prize in
Nanotechnology mentioned in Mr. Stix's "Waiting for
Breakthroughs" [April '96], I was angered by the
inaccurate and biased report on the Fourth Foresight
Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology.

Rather than addressing scientific issues concerning
nanotechnology, the article delivered an ad hominem
attack on Eric Drexler in the guise of scientific
journalism. Shame on you. The article was neither
Scientific nor American. A detailed rebuttal to the
article has been posted at: www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html

The article's illustrations hinted at the many exciting
developments in nanoscale technology. Scientific American
should host articles which present a balanced inquiry
into the feasibility and potential implications of
nanotechnology as envisioned by Drexler... An approach
more consistent with Editor in Chief Rennie's stated goal
"to offer the best informed opinion on the promise
of [new advances]".

I am disappointed to see that the report by Gary Stix in
the April issue on nanotechnology and the recent
Foresight Conference has come out so negative. For me, as
well as many other people I know, it was an exhilarating
and intellectually invigorating experience, to see a new
and emerging technology frontier discussed with detailed
research results from early, ground-breaking work. I have
also enjoyed previous Foresight nanotechnology
conferences, because of the earnest seriousness that the
Foresight Institute is devoting to tackling a complicated
topic.

Having attended this series of conferences since 1991 and
given a talk myself in 1993, it was very noticeable that
the recent conference was the best one so far.
Establishing the field has come a long way, and it is
good to see that the issues are now understood and
accepted by a sizeable research community. Many
recognized names from academia and the national labs
attended and presented their research results, showing
that we are already moving towards the goal of building
molecular machinery at quite a pace. It is thus
incomprehensible to me how Gary Stix could write a report
that is so twisted, focusing more on the personalities of
the people involved, rather than on whether what they
actually say and publish makes sense.

Scientific American seems to have had problems with the
concept of nanotechnology before. More realistic
reporting would be very desirable. I have unfortunately
been able to observe a dissatisfactory trend, which has
led me to not renew my subscription to Scientific
American. This publication once excelled at explaining
modern and intricate research to laypeople in
comprehensible terms, which is very laudable. However, I
feel that increasingly, there is more emphasis on how
flashy a topic or story might be, rather than merely
sincerely explaining complicated matters in an
understandable manner. A case in point are the many
articles on quantum physics that try to emphasize more
how unbelievably weird the quantum world is, instead of
just explaining the experimental evidence that is
available. The result is that these articles are more
confusing than clarifying. With nanotechnology, the issue
is similar in that you paint a picture of how weird it
all is, instead of explaining what the evidence in favor
of (or against) the concept is, and what implications
would arise if the evidence would hold up to scrutiny.

I hope that it is never too late to get good journalistic
reporting style back on track again. I hope will you
succeed again.

I was astonished to read Gary Stix' article on
nanotechnology. This style of negative diatribe against a
nascent technology, and particularly the personal attacks
on Dr. Drexler and his "acolytes", are unworthy
of your otherwise excellent magazine. The use of
judgemental words like "fantasies" and
"strange mix" make it clear to a critical
reader that this is an attack article. Non-critical
readers, used to this biased style of reporting in
"news" magazines and newspapers, may be drawn
into the writer's viewpoint without understanding this is
advocacy journalism, not unbiased reporting.

I first read about nanotechnology in a Scientific
American article many years ago. After hearing Dr.
Drexler speak, I read Nanosystems, and realized this was
not "science fiction", but a well-grounded
prediction of the ultimate future of materials
engineering. Most of us who have studied the field know
the difference. It is too bad that Mr. Stix was unable to
understand or even report on the technological issues
raised at the conference, and had to spend most of his
article in irrelevancies and personal attacks. I regret
the time I wasted on the phone with him discussing why I
helped endow the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology.

I enjoy reading your columns with excerpts from 50 and
100 years ago. It will be amusing to read the pull quotes
from the article in 25 years, where you will make it
sound like you predicted the nanotechnology revolution.
But right now, I'm disappointed in you. The tone of this
article belies the "Scientific" in your name.

Don't cancel my subscription; I still love the magazine,
and I want to read the future articles that will show the
world how irrelevant this article was.

As an attendee at the Fourth Foresight conference on
Molecular Nanotechnology, as well as a subscriber to
Scientific American, I was very disapointed with Gary
Stix' coverage of the conference and the subject of
nanotechnology in your April 1996 issue.

What I find particularly surprising is the bias and tone
of the article, which is at odds with Scientific
American's usual coverage of new ideas and given to both
engineering and scientific approaches to technical
subjects.

The article seems to shy away from its subject: trends in
nanotechnology. I read very little about molecular
nanotechnology in the article. Instead, I waded through a
lot of irrelevant commentary about the "cult of
nanoism". Drexler himself has expressed concern
about the "bogosity factor": the phenomenon
that some people will see a new, promising field as a
cause in and of itself, view it as a panacea, and make
brash, unsubstantiated claims for it. With Mr. Stix'
article, Scientific American has missed an opportunity to
reduce the hype and bogosity and open a public dialog on
the implications of molecular manufacturing.

Nanotechnology is no different than other fields with
respect to attracting people with unorthodox and even
wacky ideas. I think that says more about our rapidly
expanding ability to communicate, than it does about
nanotechnology, nuclear power, spaceflight, or any of a
number of other subjects. Ultimately, what's important is
whether the central premise is valid, not how much hype
has accreted to the idea.

One of the things that has most pleased me about
Scientific American is that it does not usually
condescend to its readership. Mr. Stix article should
have spent more time on the substance and less time on
the fashionability of nanotechnology. I think the least
you could do is take advantage of the Foresight
Institute's offer to conduct a discussion of the article,
by publishing the URL of their critique of Mr. Stix'
article:

Klemencic, Don

"The article about nanotechnology by Gary Stix in
the April '96 issue of Scientific American was remarkable
for its vacuousness. The closest that Stix came to giving
even the appearance of a substantive attack on Drexler's
program was the discussion of the David Jones article in
Nature. If he had looked he would have found that Jones'
critique had been demolished by Ralph Merkle (at http://nano.xerox.com/nano)
in a note that, in sharp contrast to the Stix article,
was very substantive while being witty. If in six pages
the strongest point he could make was that many
researchers doing empirical work in atomic manipulation
discount Drexler's theoretical program, then the proper
conclusion to be drawn is noteworthy and may be a
surprise to some readers: that no strong technical
obstacle to that program has yet been identified. A
celebration of spleen does not constitute an argument.
This article was unworthy of Scientific American."

I didn't read the response at www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html
until after I had mailed my letter. From what I read there, I
gather it's unlikely that Scientific American is going to publish
the address to Ralph Merkle's article that I mentioned in my
letter.

I have been a subscriber to your magazine for many years,
and I have always thought it the most respectable popular
science periodical. However, your recent review of
nanotechnology was quite disappointing. The author had a
clearly negative view of the topic, but could not present
firm arguments against it. Instead, he resorted to
personal attacks, biased language, and vague innuendo.

Ralph Merkle has composed a review/rebuttal to your
article which is available on the Web, and I will not
repeat his arguments here. I note that you have not
posted any response to his critiques; I encourage you to
do so. Either a refutation of Merkle's points, or an
apology to your readers, is in order.

I already knew enough about nanotechnology to see the
bias in the article as soon as I read it. But I wonder:
if I had been ignorant of the field, would I have
realized that the presentation was distorted? I must now
read every Scientific American article was distrust and
keep a watchful eye out for this sort of unscientific
journalism. This reduces my appreciation of the magazine
a great deal. I can only hope that this was a rare
mistake, and will not be repeated again.

Hall, J. Storrs

Gary Styx' article on nanotechnology (Apr, p. 94-99)
fills a much-needed gap in the annals of technological
forecasting. I was gratified to note that although he
quoted my article on Utility Fog, he graciously forebore
to implicate me by name, and omitted the devastating
technical critique that I look like Yosemite Sam. Mr.
Styx is now deservedly in the company of such famous
forecasters such as Sir William Preece, who showed us
that the electric light was impossible, and Simon
Newcomb, who performed that service with respect to
heavier-than-air flight. However, he missed a rhetorical
flourish, which I am happy to be able to remedy.
Recalling the words of Dr. Richard van der Riet Woolley
on the subject of space travel, Styx should have written,
"Nanotechnology is utter bilge."

J. Storrs Hall, PhD.

Friedlander, Richard A.

I am a subscriber to Scientific American. My older
brother used to read it when I was a child in the 1950s.
I have always loved it, and still do. However, your
coverage of nanotechnology was the poorest piece of
scientific journalism I have seen in these 40 years.

I wonder if the author looked at Drexler's
"Nanosystems", which expostulation was an
expanded version of his PhD theses from MIT? It is rough
going, to be sure, but your writers are paid, aren't
they?

The only other work I can think of that is as original
and profound as "Nanosystems" is Buckminster
Fuller's "Synergetics". I believe that
"Synergetics" full implications have yet to be
realized notwithstanding the discovery of
Buckminsterfullerenes.

Nanotechnology deserves a better look by Scientific
American. I would much prefer information from which I
may form my own opinion about the feasibility of
nanotechnology than the crap you published. Remember
Arthur C. Clarke's admonition: "anyone who says
something is impossible is most certainly premature and
probably wrong."

On the plus side: Christian De Duve's article on the
possible evolution of Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes was
stimulating and beautiful.

Still a faithful reader,
Rick Friedlander

Alfieri, Robert

"Trends in Nanotechnology" [April 1996]
depicts Molecular Nanotechnology as science fiction with
a "Drexlerian" cult following. MNT is actually
a serious engineering discipline that fits conservatively
within the bounds of well-established physical laws. The
only barrier to MNT's realization is a challenging
bootstrapping problem whose solution depends on modest
funding and a few clever minds.

I have read Ralph Merkle's detailed response to Gary
Stix's piece on nanotechnology. (http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html)
I would be very interested to see a response or rebuttal
to Ralph's points. Unfortunately, I am left with
impression that your story is highly biased, and is
unworthy of the standard I have come to expect from your
fine publication. If you find that the piece is indeed as
far from balanced reporting as it appears, I would be
very pleased to see a retraction or correction. At the
very least, it would promote your perception of fairness
to publish the URL to Ralph's response.

The article on nanotechnology was disturbingly
unimpressive. Although I stopped reading Scientific
American seriously about the time I left to begin my
undergraduate studies at MIT, I have still occasionally
picked up a copy for informal reading. No more.

Perhaps you all should reconsider some basic issues of
civility and quality in your publication?

As an undergraduate, I must perpetually deal with the
world of science speculation from which I draw
inspiration, and the world of scientific reality which I
confront in the lab. I appreciate therefore, that the
recent article on nanotechnology was an attempt to
reconcile the dual nature of these two worlds, and
provide a "realistic" assessment of its
potential. The article failed, however, to acknowledge
that the world of scientific speculation must be dealt
with in a different way from the world of scientific
fact. Case in point, we do not have a universal
assembler, but work is being done towards this end. The
mere fact that "nanoists'" speculations seem to
outweigh their output of facts cannot, therefore, be used
to discredit their program in the world of speculation
and the eventual possibility that it will be realized in
the world of scientific fact. Remember, these are not
talk-show hosts making wild speculations about UFO's or
other such nonsense. Rather they are trained scientists,
who deserve to have their ideas presented in a
respectable, objective, manner.

Due to the recent number of unscientific and wrong
articles, such as those about complexity, consciousness,
infinitesimals, and mostly nanotechnology, I wish to
terminate my subscription, provided I can get the
remaining subscription money refunded.

Norton, Michael

My name is Mike Norton, a professor of solid state
chemistry at a relatively small university, Marshall
University.

I have been a long term reader of Scientific American.
The article on "Nanotechnology..Breakthrough"
was the least forward looking article I've ever seen in
Scientific American. Maybe later you'll be able to claim
it was a joke.

I and my students are very enthusiastic about molecular
nanotechnology. Apparently your author has some problem
with the timing of seeing this technology coming to
fruition. The important question to ask is: Will humans
ever be able to make assemblers.... Even if it takes 1000
years or more (most of us doubt it will take that long)
the real question is "Is this beyond human
capability". The question is not cost, or current
technological capability. A lot has changed in the last
100 years! The laws of physics will not change with time,
if these laws represent the only obstacles to any human
achievement, molecular nanotechnology is really
inevitable.

Thank goodness students will not be deterred by your
article. What a missed opportunity to speed up the
inevitable, but you chose instead to present a rather
dull face to the public, who look to your publication for
leading edge information. The Luddites (the ones who also
didn't quite appreciate the value of new technology
either) would be proud to call you one of their own.